AP wants $2.50 a word to excerpt its stories now?
posted at 5:03 pm on June 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
And you thought their PR on this subject couldn’t get any worse. Must be nice to have an exemption from the same federal fair use statute every other content provider in America is governed by.
The AP’s disharmony with bloggers may have only just begun, as the alternative it’s now offering to being served with takedown notices involves paying an up-front sum for excerpting online articles — as few as five words…
The pricing scale for excerpting AP content begins at $12.50 for 5-25 words and goes as high as $100 for 251 words and up. Nonprofit organizations and educational institutions enjoy a discounted rate.
This scale is likely only a temporary solution, as it raises a truckload of questions. For instance: Suppose a news source holds a press conference, and makes a statement to several attendees including an AP correspondent. Does the citation of that quote count as an excerpt of an AP story? What if Reuters cited the same quote? Or worse, what if Reuters cited the quote differently, and a blogger noticed the difference and excerpted both for comparison? If the AP citation turned out to be in error, would the blogger still owe?
Here’s the link to a tollbooth for a random AP news alert piece. If you want to see it on an actual AP article, click the little copyright house icon near the top here, then click “Republish in a Print Publication or Other Media” followed by “Republish Excerpt Only.” What’s their game here, seriously? They’re turning themselves into laughingstocks and blogosphere pariahs while drumming up business for Reuters and AFP. If they’re trying to establish some sort of bright line beyond which excerpts can’t go without triggering infringement, then why not just lay down some reasonable-ish policy — two paragraphs maximum, say — and wait for someone to violate it, then sue to see if a court will enforce it? (Suspected answer: Because the court probably won’t and the AP knows it.) I’m mystified by their thought process.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Why not try to sue after that? They know the court wouldn’t uphold their policy because it violates fair use laws. They’re under the impression that their corporate guidelines overrides federal laws.
amerpundit on June 17, 2008 at 5:07 PM
They have a thought process? Now that’s news!
Seixon on June 17, 2008 at 5:08 PM
huh?
pecan pie on June 17, 2008 at 5:08 PM
are they going to charge media outlets this same charge ?
William Amos on June 17, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Clearly, not thinking it through. But what do you expect from secular humanist journalists?
kirkill on June 17, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Trying to make a buck the liberal way…by making foolish assumptions.
They think they are the only source.
*
Maybe they know they will be making so many errors, that as you point them out they can make a profit.
right2bright on June 17, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Have you checked the price of diesel, lately? It costs the AP a lot to truck those words up to the Internet. They just want to recoup some of their costs.
Kafir on June 17, 2008 at 5:10 PM
if they were capitalists, they might consider how allowing bloggers to link to their stories builds their brand awareness, adds value to their business, and perpetuates their position in the market.
if they were capitalists.
DrW on June 17, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Wow. Good thing “Al-AP” is the worst news outlet.
malan89 on June 17, 2008 at 5:11 PM
I’d love to see their influence wain a bit. The AP in conjunction with the NYTimes has far too much influence as a gatekeeper for the news cycle imo.
Asher on June 17, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Hey, why not charge AP for reporting events? Their journalist cards allow them access to places regular people would have no access otherwise. Press conferences, disaster areas, sporting events, etc. They are basically reselling stuff they get for free.
Aristotle on June 17, 2008 at 5:12 PM
It is administratively impossible for the AP to enforce even-handedly, all the more reason to view this as an attempt at intimidation. Bloggers are a threat to the AP, and the AP is responding to the threat.
BillLalor on June 17, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Play along with me for a moment…
They didn’t just pull these numbers out of their butt. I’d guess these are close to what they charge newspapers and other media.
If that’s the case it would GREATLY explain why we’re turning into a “soundbite” nation. The editors know they have to sell the stories, right? So they direct the writers to condense the story to its basic talking point of about 25 words (IE one paragraph) and put the pesky details into the lower selling full article.
The result? You get newspapers discussing AP articles of “Bush Lied” but never talk about the full article (because they can’t discuss it because they’d have to pay for it).
The result? Reduced intellectual discourse.
Skywise on June 17, 2008 at 5:15 PM
You know the Marxist are on a roll, they want to shut down every other source of information but the house organs, of which the AP is the main DNC house organ. Otherwise the lies won’t last an hour.
I try to avoid the AP whenever possible, they are always wrong and mostly biased.
tarpon on June 17, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Yeah, a bunch of the social networking sites have banned any submitted stories from or linked to the AP.
Agreed…what exactly IS their modus operandi?
JetBoy on June 17, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Maybe it’s out of dough.
What’s the AP’s business model? Where does it get it’s revenue? How has it been doing?
According to Wikipedia , it’s a non-profit “cooperative,owned by it’s contributing newspapers, tv and radio stations.
Non-profits have a way of sucking up the benefactor’s money!
In this day of newspaper and television’s financial demise (didn’t McClatchey just lay off 10% of its staff today), I wouldn’t be surprised if AP was told to find revenue sources elsewhere.
If we’re lucky, they’re another species of dinosaur media facing extinction.
JiangxiDad on June 17, 2008 at 5:22 PM
They are opening a can of worms.
In the long run, this attempt could end up damaging their near news monopoly.
Ragnell on June 17, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Ass Press
Jeffster on June 17, 2008 at 5:24 PM
what is the charge for factually accurate words? >;-)
cannonball on June 17, 2008 at 5:25 PM
And all this time I thought AP stood for Allahpundit.
Silly me.
harrison on June 17, 2008 at 5:25 PM
If you had employees whose job it was to write the content, you’d feel differently, I think.
lorien1973 on June 17, 2008 at 5:27 PM
UPI must be loving this.
crosspatch on June 17, 2008 at 5:28 PM
And which online sites qualify as “non-profit”?
For instance, does MoveOn qualify as non-profit? Most of your leftwing academic sites? It appears that this “rule” would damage more right wing pundits than the left.
Ragnell on June 17, 2008 at 5:28 PM
That’s not on AP’s price list. Must not be available.
Splashman on June 17, 2008 at 5:30 PM
+1
AP is reliably unreliable. Taken with a grain of salt, that no longer provides “balance”.
maverick muse on June 17, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Do we get rebates if we correct typos for them?
PR disaster, though on the upside that means a whole lot less Nedra Pickler.
JammieWearingFool on June 17, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Good for you, cannonball. Yeah, they could offer differential pricing!
BigD on June 17, 2008 at 5:31 PM
If they do, it will force my local rag out of business. Almost everything in the paper - hard copy and online, is AP.
Connie on June 17, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Perhaps, but feelings don’t negate the Fair Use doctrine. Are you familiar with the concept? No?
Splashman on June 17, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Given LINKS and independent, adjusted headline reference, AP can not charge a fee. Correct?
maverick muse on June 17, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Bullseye
Rodent on June 17, 2008 at 5:35 PM
wer gona haf to speks in lolcat now.
kirkill on June 17, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Everything Associated Press has ever written is not worth $2.50.
Maxx on June 17, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Note to the AP.
Guys
The blogosphere has increased the number of people that read the AP’s articles by tenfold. Cut them off and you LOWER your traffic.
Ragnell on June 17, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Simple solution. Charge them for charging you. Free enterprise is grand.
Limerick on June 17, 2008 at 5:39 PM
The MSM has grossly ruined the English language. Let’s charge them!
One of their current habits: saying/writing “that” (vs. the) object/incident before “it” has been introduced for contextual reference.
maverick muse on June 17, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Here’s a little insight into what’s going on:
JiangxiDad on June 17, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Charge them for the inconvenience of whatever is read.
maverick muse on June 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Simple; prevent us pajama-clad warriors from exposing and expounding on their idiocy.
steveegg on June 17, 2008 at 5:41 PM
JiangxiDad on June 17, 2008 at 5:39 PM
power to the people
maverick muse on June 17, 2008 at 5:41 PM
And Liberals aren’t all about the money? ROFLMAO!
I’m so happy they’ve taken the suicide route. It makes their ultimate demise so much quicker and easier.
TheBigOldDog on June 17, 2008 at 5:43 PM
TheBigOldDog on June 17, 2008 at 5:43 PM
sweet
maverick muse on June 17, 2008 at 5:45 PM
It is fascinating to see which industries are negatively affected by the internet.
JiangxiDad on June 17, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Hey, if they were to provide a story with the transcript of Obama’s interview on Iraq yesterday it would cost $125,000…
$110,000 for the “uhhh”s;
$15,000 for everything else.
Whatta deal!
LegendHasIt on June 17, 2008 at 5:46 PM
That’s because you assume there is one.
TheBigOldDog on June 17, 2008 at 5:47 PM
First the dinosaur media ignored the blogosphere. Then they
lost much of their print media customers and found themselves struggling to survive.
Now that the internet has become a major source of news, the old media are attempting to move into town and force a hostile take-over. But, they waited too long to make this move.
What they can do is force bloggers without deep pockets into expensive lawsuits. In the end, the AP will lose their lawsuits, but will bloggers be able to afford the fight?
Yes, if they can respond as a group.
Again, in the long run this fight may end the national dependency on AP articles.
rags
Ragnell on June 17, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Really? They just want to shut you up. Nothing more then that. They say. You listen.
It’s the future!
Limerick on June 17, 2008 at 5:49 PM
And what a crying shame that it has to come to this. In theory, an AP is terrific. In practice, it’s an enemy of the state.
JiangxiDad on June 17, 2008 at 5:50 PM
AP FU
Wade on June 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Iguessthattheycouldusethemoney.
richardcamera on June 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM
That just argues for them to attempt to increase their popularity and traffic, not shut it off at the source. The AP has no real direct access to the customer and they are essentially cutting off their distributors. It’s idiotic. It’s suicidal and I couldn’t be happier.
TheBigOldDog on June 17, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Exactly right-
In the long run, this flap may help push news services further away from the AP
Ragnell on June 17, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Expect AP’s prices to rise as they don’t intend to drill domestically.
Rovin on June 17, 2008 at 5:54 PM
I have $5 worth of words for the AP.
RobCon on June 17, 2008 at 5:54 PM
OK, so, they don’t want us to republish or reprint their articles.
*thinks*
That’s fine. I could always screenshot the website publishing their content (Breitbart, Yahoo, etc) and include the excerpt that way, sans photos.
Suck it, AP.
ConBlog_NH on June 17, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Associated Press, that is.
ConBlog_NH on June 17, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Understood. But it’s current business model doesn’t redirect the end user to its “site” where advertisements lie in wait. So how else can they get extra revenue?
I think the analogy to a distributor and retailer is perfect. But in this case, AP is concerned about its distributors, and is taking it out on the retail customer. I agree with you, a very bad tactic.
JiangxiDad on June 17, 2008 at 5:57 PM
This is pretty obvious.
The AP wants to avoid having its biased and poorly sourced articles picked apart by the blogosphere and then subject to retraction and ridicuel. The big newspapers will continue to pay it and run its tripe withough question. It has lost its propaganda monopoly and wants it back.
Think about it - if bloggers have to pay, 99% of them won’t. The AP can then just make shit up and nobody will call them on it. Think about all the fake John McCain quotes and comments they can get into circulation in the MSM.
rockmom on June 17, 2008 at 5:58 PM
BTW Allah, I now charge $2.50 a word for comments. That means you owe me $48 for this comment—Oops, I mean $58,,,,,,now it’s $68…..$75.50….$78…Damn it! Just make it an even $100.
Kasper Hauser on June 17, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Methinks Allahpundit needs a different abbreviation. We’ve got commenters inadvertently cussing him out.
Splashman on June 17, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Except that federal fair use law states, “the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” They seem to think their corporate use policies override federal law.
amerpundit on June 17, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Score!
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 17, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Is this from the Onion, or what!
I love it when libs act so stupid. They’re their own worst enemy.
petefrt on June 17, 2008 at 6:02 PM
They think, probably correctly, that bloggers don’t have deep enough pockets to prove them wrong.
Laura on June 17, 2008 at 6:02 PM
If one only pays $2.50 for the truth and deducts $2.50 for the lies, it should come out about even.
Sometimes you might even make a buck.
sparker911 on June 17, 2008 at 6:02 PM
It made reporting cheaper and more assessible, yet established a near monopoly on news. We all know the history of monopoly abuses. The end result is always some form of corruption.
In this case, a monopoly controlled by left-wing, anti-American and Islamist world-views made for abuse and damage of our culture and nation.
Blogs remind me of the people who offer free samples of brands in a grocery store. You eat a sample and may decide to buy the whole package, or may become a regular customer.
rags
Ragnell on June 17, 2008 at 6:04 PM
How does their model work? If you excerpt an AP article and drive the traffic to say, the Boston Hrald, how does AP get paid? Does the Herald pay a flat fee or a per view fee? Anyway, if people stop driving traffic to the Newspapers AP stories, the AP becomes less valuable to the Newspaper. They opt to get the same story from another source without the restrictions…
TheBigOldDog on June 17, 2008 at 6:05 PM
If everybody used “crAP” when referring to the Associated Press, we’d be golden.
steveegg on June 17, 2008 at 6:06 PM
EXTRA! EXTRA!
FREE PRESS NO LONGER FREE. LIES, HOWEVER, STILL AVAILABLE AT NO COST!
READ ALL ABOUT IT, AS LONG AS YOU PAY PER WORD YOU READ!
madmonkphotog on June 17, 2008 at 6:08 PM
I dig it.
ConBlog_NH on June 17, 2008 at 6:08 PM
You’re right, that’s probably what they think. Or they think their opposition will cave without much of a fight. But I think they’re wrong. If needed, their opposition will unite and pool resources. They’re going to lose this one, eventually.
petefrt on June 17, 2008 at 6:14 PM
And so on, ad nauseum?
Rusty Bill on June 17, 2008 at 6:16 PM
The ‘news’, according to AP
Belongs to them, don’t you see.
Don’t quote what they say,
They’ll make sure that you pay!
News and opinion aren’t free!
Limerick on June 17, 2008 at 6:18 PM
We could troll-quote them by removing the vowels. Think the price will come down then? ;-)
Laura on June 17, 2008 at 6:18 PM
In an article about the death of Cyd Charisse, AP has her married to Tony Bennett. That must be news to Tony Bennett. Charisse was married to Tony Martin. And they want people to pay for this? I’m in the wrong business. I know lots of stuff that’s not true.
http://tinyurl.com/64t2pa
mad_cow on June 17, 2008 at 6:28 PM
There comes a place there shouldn’t be an intellectual property right. For instance, I oppose software patents, though I will admit the opposing view at least has a point. But the inability to quote less than 26 words is an attack on freedom of speech without any imaginable benefit to society. Sometimes you need to provide a few exact words to point out inaccuracies and distortions. We need to reveal inaccuracies and distortions if we are going to have a successful democracy.
If the AP has a right to charge for five words, we need copyright law reform to protect freedom of speech and we need it now!
thuja on June 17, 2008 at 6:29 PM
The only legitimate argument against AP’s new policy is “fair use” issues. Why not discuss that more?
“I don’t like it”, “They’ll lose money”, “They are dumb and suck anyway” has no relevance to whether AP’s policy is legal. It’s frankly none of anyone’s business whether they want to lose money or not. Kind of like when liberals force business to operate in a way that they say are in the business’ best interest, when it’s the business’ choice if they want to lose or make money.
A lot of the comments against AP’s new policy (aside from Fair Use) seem to focus on the same arguments for Napster’s old free trade structure. Music thiefs would say how it didn’t matter about the artists’ rights or concerns. What they said matters is the consumers getting free music and of course brought forth of many legally irrelevant reasons (good promo for the artist, I wouldn’t buy the whole record anyway, they sell more if I steal a few, look at all the publicity, etc..) why it would benefit the artist.
Seems like the same propaganda here for stealing someone’s property.
nottakingsides on June 17, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Does this mean blogs will finally start providing “original” reporting?
alphie on June 17, 2008 at 6:51 PM
I wouldn’t give $2.50 for every damn word the AP has ever written.
edgehead on June 17, 2008 at 7:01 PM
— Michael Yon, Moment of Truth in Iraq, p. 6.
You can get his book free at the link.
RushBaby on June 17, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Do we get a massive credit for fauxtography? A Green Hemlet Guy special?
shaken on June 17, 2008 at 7:14 PM
So…are we not allowed to quote the AP in the comments now?
JetBoy on June 17, 2008 at 7:18 PM
thuja on June 17, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Leftist AP tries its hand as SHAKEDOWN artists,
but seriously,
they need to bring in Jessie Jackstoned or Al Not So Sharptson to explain to them a shakedown doesn’t work without a percieved ability to harm the shakendown.
Now if they could threaten a boycott of some sort by Obama backers???
Oh hell, they mostly don’t read or think, just Hope and take your change.
dhunter on June 17, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Right, if an AP article or it’s coverage is the object of criticism, bloggers are protected by Fair Use, and they can quote whatever and however much is relevant to make their case. But if they’re just mooching news, then they need to be circumspect about how much they quote… and they need always to include links and proper attribution. One of the legal tests is whether they quote so much as to siphon off business revenues from the quoted source.
Can AP own the news? One way to look at it is that they can own the article, but they can’t own the information.
Bloggers can paraphrase. No sweat.
Again, AP’s charge-per-word is a really stupid tactic.
petefrt on June 17, 2008 at 7:23 PM
If the battle got nasty, I don’t see any need to excerpt their stories at all. Simply write your own general description of the story and link it.
Maxx on June 17, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Let’s all go to dKOS and quote the hell out of AP stories.
innominatus on June 17, 2008 at 7:38 PM
I just ran up $740 tab with the Ass Press:
http://nomayo.mu.nu/2.50_a_word_for_ap_quotes
Stephen Macklin on June 17, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Following this logic, if pictures are worth 1000 words, if you describe a single photo that the AP took, did you just run up a $2500 tab?
MB007 on June 17, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Ha! screw’em paraphrase.
TheSitRep on June 17, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Last I knew, Fair Use wasn’t governed by the number of words used.
Just look at it this way, if enough of us get “charged,” there’s always class action. ;)
ConBlog_NH on June 17, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Perhaps they just need some extra money since not too many people seem to be interested in what they are selling.
It is either charge bloggers or get a second job delivering pizza at night.
EJDolbow on June 17, 2008 at 8:32 PM
I have that right generally, and in this forum as long as HA allows me to do so.
I pretty much agree with your take on intellectual property and the discussion of that in general.
I was discussing the arguments I read such as “what is best for bloggers and blog readers outweighs the rights of the producer of the material” or “freely using the producers property is better for producers, so they should not be allowed that right to charge for their property”. It just seemed anti-capitalist to me, and were the same arguments produced for the old Napster model.
Liberals typically show statistics of increased profitability to prove a case for forced affirmative action quotas. Same with music thieves and their argument for artist benefits.
I don’t disagree with you on deciding what property is theirs, what is “fair use”, etc…
nottakingsides on June 17, 2008 at 8:45 PM
That’s a good take on it.
nottakingsides on June 17, 2008 at 8:46 PM
This is pretty obvious.
rockmom is dead on with this issue. Ap’s agenda is to quash any dissent or to “fact-check” the tripe they plan to get away with in the months to come.
Jamil Hussein is turning in his grave—–rhetorically speaking of course.
Rovin on June 17, 2008 at 8:47 PM
Ok, freedom of speech is a basic right, but I do think it is rather tacky and counterproductive to say other’s arguments are illegitimate. It also does nothing to show how their arguments are wrong. It’s always best to give a substantive reason, though I suppose we all fail from time to time.
thuja on June 17, 2008 at 9:05 PM
Comic books were $.25 for a whole book just a few years ago. So now they are $2.50 per word?? wow now that is inflation!
allrsn on June 17, 2008 at 9:30 PM
I gave numerous reasons following that. You wrote a few paragraphs disputing them, remember?
In regards to the actual use of “legitimate” I said this:
I should have added “& property rights”, and used proper grammer but I still stand by it.
Saying that AP shouldn’t charge fees because it would hurt their business would be an illegitimate argument against their right to charge fees. It’s not even remotely relevant.
Just because you don’t agree, doesn’t make it “tacky and counterproductive”. Nice diversion though.
nottakingsides on June 17, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »